Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:These languages are not widely spoken. Spanish is. Spanish is also, arguably a native language of the US as when the US was formed and expanded it took over Spanish territories.
Florida, Texas, most of the Southwest (New Mexico, Arizona, large swaths of California), Puerto Rico, and others were taken from either Mexico or Spain via war. Many people already living there were descended from Spanish ancestors.
Though by this logic we also should count Dutch (New Netherlands), Swedish (New Sweden), and French (the Louisiana Purchase, even if that was from Spain) as "native" languages.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We can come up with $$$ to study the language of young white men today, but not the languages of people we conquered and marginalize.
I don't know what you are referring to, but that's what happens when people are conquered.
The people living in the United States are overwhelmingly descendants of Europeans, so those are the languages that we study. What would be the point of learning Navajo?
Anonymous wrote:We can come up with $$$ to study the language of young white men today, but not the languages of people we conquered and marginalize.
Anonymous wrote:Language is not a boutique interest. It is either a matter of heritage (which is why native speakers of these languages tend to concentrate their time on learners from those communities—the supply side) or a life skill.
Do you want a life skill that enables you to interact with a small population or a much, much larger one? That’s the demand side.
Anonymous wrote:For the same reason that France doesn't teach Brittany Gaelic, Occitan or Basque to its schoolchildren.
The whole point of organized school is to prepare children for contributing to the economy, which includes building diplomatic and trading ties with other countries. This isn't about reviving minority languages.